heh heh ... that's enough inspiration to trackback a blog entry to you tonight.

I'll bite on this one... wearing my film programmer hat. My definition of a documentary film is a film that tells a story set in reality, using the actual participants of the events depicted to express the point of view of the artist behind the camera. Documentaries may include fictional elements to underscore real events that were not filmed (re-enactments, staged events, montage) but the overall relation to actual events must be a primary one. Otherwise, you have fiction.
???

I've been teaching "The Thin Blue Line" this week, and the general question (what is a doc?) has come up a few times, with students challenging me about whether or not F9/11 is a documentary. We've also discussed whether or not the re-enactment scenes in "Line" disqualify it as a doc (I don't think they do).

I like Tom's definition quite a bit, and I'd add that doucmentaries will inevitably have a POV. I don't think it's possible be completely objective, and I'm usually suspicious of documentaries that claim to be unbiased.

I found these only recently, but here are some links to
other interesting websites that also probe this topic:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com
http://www.moorelies.com

"How do you define the term documentary film?"

A "documentary" is a film which attempts to document some reality (actual event or person), either by directly filming that reality (cinema verite or direct cinema) or presenting that reality through pre-existing media sources (film clips). There may or may not be an attempt at objectivity on the part of the filmmaker; the key is that the subject is a real thing, person, or event.

"Is "Fahrenheit 9/11" a documentary?"

Yes. But clarification within the abundantly broad term "documentary" may be necessary to distinguish the films of Ken Burns from the films of Michael Moore. For the most part common, I find relevant adjectives are successful: Burns makes "historical documentaries," Moore makes "political documentaries." When you encounter a truly gifted documentary artists like Wiseman, that's when things get difficult.

"How has the definition of documentary changed in recent years, if at all?"

It has not changed. But it has also never been codified or decreed either. Is Jon Jost's "Speaking Directly" a documentary? I say yes - a "personal documentary" or even "personal political documentary." Many critics would say no: Jost's film is a "polemic" or "propaganda" (the same epithets most often hurled at Moore). What these critics fail to realize is that even a polemic documents something: at the very least an event and the artist's reaction to the event. Even a "polemic" like Moore's or Jost's represents the views of millions of other people.

"Can or should documentaries have a point of view and if so, are they still called documentaries?"

I find "should" questions are often motivated by a desire to impose order. In this case, I feel the dialog (in general, not Eugene's blog) is motivated more by a desire to categorize Moore's film in such a way that it can be safely dismissed. The primary meme is that the film is "propaganda," therefore does not need to be examined for any elements of truth.

Suddenly there is a need to define "documentary." This problem of definition was previously a minor one, of concern mostly to documentary filmmakers and critics. Now we have a documentary seen by millions, made by the person who took the Oscar last year in the category, and we suddenly need to decide, is this a "documentary?"

Exactly what is the problem here? Why the overriding need to have one single word that encompasses such a clearly large and diverse field of filmmaking?

I find this dicussion much more useful than the "what is indie" arguments, but am concerned by this need to force one word to mean so many things, or (even more disturbing) dismiss a particular film because it does not fit some likely arbitrary definition of the word "documentary."

It seems to me that most people are interested in defining the word in such a way that it excludes certain filmmakers rather than includes more films. This bothers me. Definitions of art or art forms are best when they are broad and inclusive. If further clarification is needed, there is a fine collection of adjectives available in the English language.

Every documentary does not need to be the same. By attempting to narrow the defintion, we narrow the category, and likely narrow and reduce the number of films made in this category.

There is no way to nail this word down because one of its central elements is "truth." And the definition of "truth" is something philosophers have wrestled for centuries. Most of us these days accept that "truth" is in the eye of the beholder, a very subjective thing. Can we not accept that documentaries, which in their essence attempt to convey "truth," will sometimes contain a highly objective view of "truth?" Must all documentaries be the same?

i think a key function of a doc is its relationship to moments, ideas or actions that would have still occured without the fact of its being the subject of a film. one recent film which completely fails to be a "documentary" in my book is Super Size Me, which was basically a performance poorly captured using documentary video aesthetics. i felt SSM was as "real" as a junior high produced public service announcement. farenheit's for the most part chronicles events that existed or occuired independently.

Read Mike Wolverton's "How to Make Documentaries; Chapter 3: Redefining the Documentary" (Gulf Publishing, TX, 1983).

Wolverton writes:

"The documentary, as I would like to define it, reveals and reshapes reality in a universal language that compels attention and involvement regardless of one's interest in, or need to know about, the subject of the documentary."

"On the theory that hindsight is better than no sight I now suggest that we pick up where Flaherty and Grierson left us and, standing perhaps a bit uncertainly on the threshold of our new understanding of man, consciousness, and the nature of reality, put poetry and reportage into the reality we out on our reels, so that our documentaries serve the holistic siprit of our times."

I agree.

Tom O'Connor
Writer/Producer
SPECIAL REPORT
News and Documentary

It's worth noting that Moore himself is on record as simply referring to Fahrenheit 9/11 as a film; but anyway.... A documentary was originally defined (by Grierson) as having a "documentary value"; & by that standard, Fahrenheit 9/11 certainly qualifies - every frame documents the pretence & incompetence of a political system run amock. That said: it's hardly Cinema Verite; & might be more usefully viewed as a cinemantic essay than a conventional documentary. Noone expects an essay to be uncompromising truth; only that it's arguments be uncompromisingly defendable.

"It's worth noting that Moore himself is on record as simply referring to Fahrenheit 9/11 as a film; but anyway.... "

"Of course it's a documentary, it's a non-fiction film, it's a documentary," emphasized Michael Moore, during a conference call with a group of journalists earlier this week. "Documentaries by their very nature are supposed to have a point of view. The word has also been used over the years -- from 'NBC White Paper' to any of a number of forms of documentary. My form of doc is an op-ed piece. It presents my opinion that's based on fact. I am trying to present a view of the last three-and-a-half years that I don't feel has been presented to the American public."

http://www.indiewire.com/onthescene/onthescene_040702docs.html

"it's hardly Cinema Verite"

Has anyone suggested it is, or is even attempting to be "cinema verite" or direct cinema?

"might be more usefully viewed as a cinemantic essay than a conventional documentary."

Why might that be useful? Because it would dilute whatever "uncompromising truth" is contained in the film by giving people a built-in excuse to dismiss the "uncompromising truth" if they object to the facts presented?

Exactly what is a "conventional documentary?" Can you provide three examples?

Why do so many, even those who seem to like and even agree with Moore's film, want to classify this film in such a way that it becomes "less truthful" than a Ken Burns film (all of which are built on a Burns thesis, with material selected and edited to endorse Burns' thesis)?

diabetic insulin diabetic supplies american diabetes association diabetes diet diabetic diet insulin pumps juvenile diabetes symptoms of diabetes diabetes equipment glucose meter syringes lifescan http://www.diabetic-care-supplies.com

http://bethanyfryesamethyst.blogspot.com amethyst necklace amethyst necklace | http://bethanyfryesamethyst.blogspot.com amethyst amethyst | http://bethanyfryesamethyst.blogspot.com amethyst rings amethyst rings